Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation: A Review of Stakeholder Perspectives and Prior Research

被引:29
|
作者
Ewelt-Knauer, Corinna [1 ]
Gold, Anna [2 ]
Pott, Christiane [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Munster, Accounting Ctr Muenster, Univ Str 14-16, D-48143 Munster, Germany
[2] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Amsterdam Res Ctr Accounting, Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
D O I
10.1080/17449480.2013.772717
中图分类号
F8 [财政、金融];
学科分类号
0202 ;
摘要
The global financial crisis brought to the fore questions surrounding the scope and quality of the external audit, market concentration and auditor independence. One of the issues currently being considered by the European Commission and European Parliament is mandatory audit firm rotation. The aim of this review is to identify, consider and evaluate stakeholder views and research evidence on mandatory audit firm rotation to highlight deficiencies in the existing research literature, identify opportunities for further research and make recommendations for policy-makers. As demonstrated, stakeholder views vary widely. We find that the research evidence on the impact of mandatory audit firm rotation on audit quality and auditor independence is inconclusive. Whilst there is some evidence that rotation may have a positive impact on 'independence in appearance', most research fails to generalise these findings to measures of audit quality associated with 'independence in fact' and there is even evidence of potentially adverse effects of rotation. Given the lack of evidence associating mandatory audit firm rotation with an improvement on audit quality, regulators need to determine carefully the long-term objectives of a mandatory rotation requirement before implementing a costly measure. We further highlight the need for future research looking at the implications of measures designed to improve audit quality.
引用
收藏
页码:27 / 41
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] The impact of mandatory audit firm rotation on the ability of directors to discharge their statutory duties
    McGregor, Dale J.
    Carpenter, Riley
    SOUTHERN AFRICAN JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND AUDITING RESEARCH-SAJAAR, 2021, 23 : 33 - 52
  • [22] Mandatory audit firm rotation and prohibition of audit firm-provided tax services: Evidence from investment consultants' perceptions
    Aschauer, Ewald
    Quick, Reiner
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDITING, 2018, 22 (02) : 131 - 149
  • [23] Audit firm rotation and audit quality: evidence from academic research
    Jenkins, David
    Vermeer, Thomas
    ACCOUNTING RESEARCH JOURNAL, 2013, 26 (01) : 75 - 84
  • [24] Mandatory audit firm rotation: a critical composition of practitioner views from an emerging economy
    Harber, Michael
    Maroun, Warren
    MANAGERIAL AUDITING JOURNAL, 2020, 35 (07) : 861 - 896
  • [25] Does Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation Enhance Auditor Independence? Evidence from Spain
    Ruiz-Barbadillo, Emiliano
    Gomez-Aguilar, Nieves
    Carrera, Nieves
    AUDITING-A JOURNAL OF PRACTICE & THEORY, 2009, 28 (01): : 113 - 135
  • [26] Costs and benefits of mandatory audit firm rotation: initial engagement experience of audit committee chairs and engagement partners
    Harber, Michael
    de Ricquebourg, Alan Duboisee
    Maroun, Warren
    ACCOUNTING FORUM, 2024, 48 (01) : 63 - 89
  • [27] Mandatory auditor rotation and audit quality
    Dayanandan, Ajit
    Kuntluru, Sudershan
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, 2023, 31 (04) : 585 - 599
  • [28] Mandatory partner rotation, audit timeliness and audit pricing
    Azizkhani, Masoud
    Hossain, Sarowar
    Jiang, Alicia
    Yap, Wenjing
    MANAGERIAL AUDITING JOURNAL, 2021, 36 (01) : 105 - 131
  • [29] Audit firm rotation and audit quality: Comparison before vs after the elimination of audit firm rotation regulations in Indonesia
    Widyaningsih, Inas Aisyah
    Harymawan, Iman
    Mardijuwono, Agus Widodo
    Ayuningtyas, Eka Sari
    Larasati, Dyah Ayu
    COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT, 2019, 6 (01):
  • [30] Does Mandatory Rotation of Audit Partners Improve Audit Quality?
    Lennox, Clive S.
    Wu, Xi
    Zhang, Tianyu
    ACCOUNTING REVIEW, 2014, 89 (05): : 1775 - 1803